The Soldier's Sacrifice in Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est”

Wilfred Owen uses strong imagery to not just tell but show the suffering of soldiers in World War I arena fighting for both their country and their survival.  Owen’s images represent and blend all the senses of sight, smell, and sounds, and tease out the visceralness of the soldiers’ dying against the gas explosions.  This is true, especially in lines, “but limped on, blood-shod / All went lame, all blind” (6-7), which show how difficult it was for the soldiers at the time to walk and even to move.  The images of limping, blood, and blindness express the weakness of people to struggle for their lives.  Moreover, in the line, “Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling” (9), expresses the soldiers’ terror in fighting to grope for the gas masks.  Everywhere is gas and gas, and the soldiers cannot see or breathe.  They keep trying to reach the edge of handle of the gas mask, but it is really awkward since much gas in there at the time. 

Eventually, the poet says that if we, as readers, really understood the soldiers’ suffering to survive the way he does, no one would say this, “dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori” (28), Mayer explains the meaning,  “it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country” (649).  The soldiers rest in peace after sacrificing their lives for their country and people will not see their struggling to fight against not only the enemies but also for their lives.  In short, these images are so effective because they make me see, feel, hear, and smell the bodies of the soldiers in the field. The images really evoke my visceral senses.  They make the surrounding alive and take me to the real field to see the suffering of the soldiers dying.

Ibsen Nora’s Decision: A Revolt from Her Dance in Response to Her Husband

Introduction

The topic of this paper is the pursuit of feminist autonomy in a marital relationship.  It will also raise the issue of whether woman oppression in marriage is unique or is representative of other forms of human oppression.   The objective is to analyze, using feminist theory and Marxist approaches, Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House in order to come to some conclusions about depictions of gender expectations and the marital relationship. The research focuses on Nora’s psychological paradox in Ibsen’s A Doll House: an irreconcilable conflict between the individual’s need for autonomy and the emotional and social expectations of motherhood and marriage.  The questions on this aspect of this paper are the following: 1) how is Nora depicted initially in the play? 2) What are the forces that affect her? 3) What is the nature of her choice to leave?  Nora is depicted as passive and dependent and behaves as a good wife.  But Nora’s husband is an angry and self-absorbed man who is unkind to her and whom she believes will not change, and therefore she will not achieve a happy marriage and life with him.  This is the source of her irreconcilable conflict.  Ultimately, she “buys” her autonomy by sacrificing her relationship with her children.

In addition, this paper will include a discussion of the extent to which Ibsen’s play can be read on more than one level as being about female oppression or about human oppression.  Nora can be understood as a woman fighting against patriarchal oppression, or she can be understood as a representative of a broader class of victims of human oppression, whether male or female.  Do other victims of human oppression face similar paradoxes as Nora face? And do they have to make equally tragic decisions.   

Summary

A Doll House is a story about a wife, Nora, who is initially depicted as passive and dependent on her husband, Torvald. She always tries to behave as a good wife, serves her husband properly and takes care of her children.  The husband, Torvald, becomes sick with tubercolosis, and their doctor suggests that they move to a warmer city in the South to make him better.  But they do not have enough money to travel to the South.  Then, Nora forges her father’s signature and borrows money from the banker, Mr. Kogard.  Nora lies to Torvald and says that the money is form her father heritage.  Eventually, they move and Torvald health improves. 

Kogard blackmails Nora by saying he will tell her husband about her deception unless her husband does not fire him.  Torvald wants to fire Kogard because he was found guilty of manipulating money at the bank.  Nora tries to convince Torvald to accept Kogard again at his bank, but Torvald gets angry, writes a dismisal letter immediately and sends it to Kogard.  Because Kogard has been fired, he sends back the letter to Torvald, who then discovers his wife’s forgery. 

The plot becomes complicated when Torvald wants to read the letter from Kogard.  Nora tries to postpone his reading it until the event of the ball at their house is over.  After the ball, Torvald reads the letter, and Nora becomes afraid of her husband’s anger since she has lied and deceived him.  Ultimately, her fears come true.  Torvald is extremely angry at her, calling her a “hypocrite and criminal”, and saying she does not deserve to be a good wife and mother.  He claims that her dishonesty comes from her mother, who cannot teach her daughter to be honest, and goes on with the accusations that she will teach his children to lie, as well.  He believes she can never become a good wife and mother. 

Nora is so distraught to be called a criminal and incapable of being a good mother.  She tells Torvald that he is selfish to focus only on himself and his social status.  He has discounted her sacrifice in trying to find money to cure and save him.  Nora is tired of being treated as a doll with no decisions of her own, controlled by her husband.  She believes her husband will not change and that the only way to make her life free from her husband’s oppression is away from her doll house.  She decides to leave her husband and her children, as well.  

Review of Literature

According to Marxist feminist theory (Dobie, 120), there are some questions we can ask if we have chosen the text that we will examine for Marxist feminist critique.  We can start by examining the roles women play in work, the roles women play in raising children, shopping, and spending her husband’s money.  Nora says, “you could give me money, Torvald… then I will buy something with it” (1282).  A woman is depicted as weak, socially and economically, so that she depends on her husband.

In A Doll House, it is not only Nora who suffers socially and humanly, but also Mrs. Linde, her friend, who must support her brother and her mother by marrying a rich man, finally divorcing, and becoming a widow who tries to fight for herself and her family.  Another suffering woman is Ms. Anne-Marie, Nora’s maid, who earns a living by being a servant, cleaning Nora’s house, taking care of everything, and her children, too.  On the other hand, men’s roles are depicted as strong, socially and humanly. Torvald has received the promotion to be a manager in the bank, and Dr. Rank is a doctor who is falling in love with Nora.  Here, men are shown to be higher than women, socially and politically. 

The stereotypes of women in the plays are that they do not understand the world outside the home, what they know is only domestic things.  When Nora asks about the bank, Torvald replies, “Nora, Nora, how like a woman!” (1282), which implies that Torvald thinks that Nora does not understand about the bank at all, just as was custoAnne-Marie for women at the time.  

The way the male characters talk and treat the female characters is rude and disrespectful. Torvald is really angry at Nora when he learns that she lied about the money as he calls her, “worse, worse – a criminal! The shame!” (1322). In contrast, the way the female characters act toward the male characters is by accepting their behavior, and not replying rudely, as Nora answers, “when I’m gone from this world, you will be free” (1322).  Here we can see that the way that men talk to women is different.  Men talk loudly and rudely, but women speak softly and politely. 

We are also able to analyze the character who is the most socially and politically powerful in the play, a man. Torvald is socially powerful, as he works and fuels their domestic economy, and he is also really concerned with his social status, as he says, “now you’ve wrecked all my happiness – ruined my whole future” (1322).  Meanwhile, Nora is weak socially since she does not earn money, and when Torvald is upset, he blames her. 

The opinions about women expresses in the play are low, as men demand women to be perfect as wives and mothers.  Torvald believes that Nora “can’t be allowed to bring up the children; I don’t dare trust you with them” (1323).  Because Nora has lied to him, he thinks that Nora will teach his children to be liars. 

The assumption toward women in this play is materialistic. When her husband says, “Nora, guess what I have here” (1282), she replies, “money” (1282).  From this line, we can assume that women are obsessed with wealth and possessions.  But a man is assumed to make a lot of money and to have a prestigious job, as Torvald says, “it’s so gratifying to know that one’s gotten a safe, secure job, and with a comfortable salary” (1282).

A Marxist examination will be about who has power and who is powerless in the play. The answer is that the wife, Nora, is powerless, since she has no power to reject her husband’s will, even the way she dances is based on her husband’s preferences.  Torvald manages everything in Nora’s life, even her dance: “now you should run through your tarantela and practice your tambourine” (1305). 

Another analysis would be directed at the question of whether the two parties are depicted with equal attention. The author devotes equal attention to male and female characters, showing the unequal power of the two.  But the characters themselves have different attentions. Torvald’s attention is all about his job, and the most important for him is his career. On the other hand, Nora’s attention is paying her debt every month.  Here, we can see that Nora has a burden to pay her debt monthly, maybe even for the rest of her life, since the debt is really huge.

If I had to choose, I would choose to admire Nora, since she has sacrificed her life to make her husband secure and is driven to leave her children because she is oppressed by her husband.  Nora also has my sympathy, as she is brave enough to leave her family to make her life better and happier.  Her decision also encourages oppressed people to think about their oppression.  They can consider whether to stage the same revolt as Nora, or stay in suffering conditions.

Marxist analysis also asks why do the powerful people have their power? Since Torvald fuels his domestic economy he can do whatever he wants toward Nora and controls Nora’s life based on his desires.  He chooses Nora’s food, Nora’s clothes, and even Nora’s dance.  Nora, here, is exactly like a doll which is not able to do anything by itself, and even has no right to live.

A final question is: what are the values of the author’s time and place? According to Meyer, “A woman in upper class society of the time had few choices in an unhappy marriage.  Divorce or separation meant ostracism” (1336). If Nora can make this paradoxical decision, it means that she is prepared to be ostracized by her society than being oppressed in her doll house.   She comes to believe that money cannot guarantee her happiness. This paradox has come into being even though her husband is rich, and can give her money but she cannot share her feelings and her problems about her debt as she realize that Torvald will be angry at her, even though the debt for her husband’s security.

Those questions guide the researcher to find the answers how a wife and a husband are depicted in the play and how marital relationships are developed in the Victorian era, as well as its comparison to modern Marxist feminist theory.

Analysis

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House tells a story about a woman, Nora, who feels submissive and oppressed in her family.  She is controlled by and dependent on her husband, Torvald.  Decisions are made by her husband, not by her.  When, she is dancing, her husband decides how she should dance in a way that her husband likes, instead of her own way.  Her husband even forbids her to eat candy because it will make her fat and ruin her teeth.  For almost eight years of marriage, she could not do anything unless her husband decided and told it to her.  Eventually, she becomes frustrated at being always controlled by her husband, and then she leaves her home.  She decides to leave home because she cannot control herself anymore and believes that her husband will not change. Her decision to leave her family becomes a symbol of revolt for both women and all oppressed people in the world. 

Moreover, according to Moi, A Doll House is “a play that calls for a radical transformation [forvandling], not just, or not even primarily, of laws and institutions, but of human beings and their ideas of love” (256).  Moi argues that the play is more than about a woman who suffers and is oppressed by her husband, but it is about human beings in the world.  Nora, here, represents oppressed people in this world, as Nora says to Torvald: “you’ve never understood me.  I’ve been wronged greatly, Torvald – first Papa, and then by you” (1324).  Nora thinks that her life is controlled by men for the whole of her life, and they treat her like a doll.  She cannot express her opinion and feelings, which is like a doll, silent and passive. 

Torvald’s role in marital relationship is to give orders and demands to Nora, mostly for what Nora does every day.  He always manages Nora, “now you should run through your tarantella and practice your tambourine” (1305).  And he treats her based on his desire and never asks for Nora’s opinion, even in the way of her dancing, “slower.  Slowdown.. not so violent, Nora!  Nora does not have the rights to show what she enjoys, but suffers and is oppressed by her husband’s total control of her life.  Ibsen presents Nora’s action as a symbol of freedom not only for women but also for all humans oppressed in the world.  For feminism, Nora is a symbol of oppression of women, that women must decide themselves how to stop their oppression at home.   

Initially in the play, Nora is depicted as a woman who can only have her needs met through the agency of a man.  She seems often to say, “Oh please, Torvald darling, do that! I beg you, please” (1282).  She often uses her persuasive language and her soft voice to seduce her husband to fulfill her needs, money and whatever she wants.  Even though sometimes her husband becomes angry at her seduction, she has no other choices.  She believes that her husband is the only one who can help her.  Therefore, in this case, she is oppressed because she  has no choice but to accept whatever her husband chooses to give her.  Her demands make her husband angry and he abuses her verbally: “this is the most incredible stubbornness!  Because you go and give an impulsive promise to speak up for him” (1303).  Nora’s husband’s role is that of a man who has “got a big salary and make piles and piles of money” (1281).  Because he is the one who can make money, he can abuse her verbally before he gives her money: “come on, don’t be a sulky squirrel.  Nora, guess what I have here” (1282) Torvald is not capable of returning love for her submission, but punishes her, first, before giving her what she asks of him. 

Nora is depicted as dependent and behaves as a good wife in her doll house.  She is unable to decide what the best thing is for her.  Her husband, Torvald makes all the rules for her.  For example: she is not allowed to eat candy because it will destroy her teeth and make her fat.  When she dances, she cannot express her own dance freely, but must always dance in response to her husband.  This metaphor applies as well to all oppressed people who have no choice but to be passive and dependent and behave as they should.   These are the characteristics of slaves.   

Nora’s role at home is that of a wife who “has been spendthrift been out throwing money around” (1281).  All she can do is beg for money from her husband and spend it on her family needs, but not for herself, since she has to pay her debt to cure her husband.  Here, we can see that Nora’s oppression is not only from the way her husband treats her but also from her role as wife who “hung onto the money” (1282), even though, tragically, the money is not for herself but for saving her husband.

Torvald always controls her, what she should eat, what she should wear, and how she should dance, until one day, Nora wants to say, “I have such a huge desire to say – to hell and be damned!” (1291) to her husband.  This statement show us that Nora has always felt oppressed in her marriage, but she does not dare to tell it to Torvald.  She just keeps it in her heart and does not realize how much she actually suffers and is not happy at all.

Torvald’s dominance in the marriage makes Nora afraid to tell him the truth and to discuss her opinions with her husband.  She realizes that “Torvald, with all his masculine pride – how painfully humiliating for him if he ever found out he was in debt to me” (1288).  From this excerpt, we understand that Nora’s situation in life is complicated.  Since she wants to save her husband’s life, she is additionally oppressed by her own lying.  I cannot see that Nora is selfish as Marvin Rosenrnberg argues that “Nora is selfish, frivolous, seductive, unprincipled, and deceitful. These qualities make her the remarkable dramatic charac-ter she is, and demonstrate Ibsen's capacity to turn po-lemic into play” (894). Nora is afraid to share her feelings and her problems with her husband because her husband has a patriarchal tyranny in their marriage. 

She saves her husband’s life by sacrificing herself – “I found other ways of making money… to get a lot of copying to do… Ah I was tired so often… but it was wonderful fun… earning money.  It was almost like being a man” (1289).  This excerpt demonstrates the paradox that Nora found her happiness through her suffering, being exhausted, working at night just to pay her debt to cure her husband.  It becomes a paradox because after she cures her husband, she leaves him.  According to Maroula Joannou, “Late Victorian and Edwardian society came to associate Ibsen’s work with progressive attitudes to contemporary sexual and social issues; divorce, the marriage laws, the “double standard,” and women’s desire for autonomy” (180). 

Ironically, Nora only substitutes her oppressions by one man with that of another man, Mr. Krogstad,  when she borrows money ’s oppression continues to other man, Mr. Krogstad, who is her husband’s employer and the one she borrows money for the trip to secure her husband.  Mr. Krogstad tries to blackmail her to tell her husband the truth about the money.  Joseph roach proposes, “the blackmail is pervasive and diffuse, hovering as a potential threat” (300).  Nora denies it saying, “you are trying to frighten me! I’m not so silly as all that.  No, but that’s impossible! I did it out of love” (1297), she still worries that if her husband finds out, he will be angry.  Here, what she did for love makes her vulnerable and Krogstad uses her weakness to blackmail her. 

Moreover, Torvald often undervalues Nora’s actions and contribution.  He says, “but Nora… you dance as if your life were at stake”.  He criticizes Nora’s efforts for their Christmas:  “making flowers for the Christmas tree…. But the outcome was pretty sorry, Nora” (1284).  Here, he does not show his respect for Nora’s hard work to please him, but only dismisses her creativity. 

Ultimately, when Torvald finds that Nora has lied, he becomes angry and abuses her again verbally by calling her “a hypocrite, a liar-worse, worse – a criminal… you will go right on living in this house… but you can’t be allowed to bring up the children” (1322). Torvald’s words make her realize how much she is suffering and is oppressed by his sarcastic words.  In defiance, she accepts his assessment of her, agrees that he is correct, that she needs to educate herself, and so she abandons him and her children.  John Templeton argues that A Doll House’s theme is “the need of every individual to find out the kind of person he or she is and to strive to become that person” (28). Nora leaves her house to claim her identity and to become more independent.

The heavy weight of her oppression forces Nora into her paradoxical decision to leave her family.  Torvald is an angry and self-absorbed man who is unkind to her and whom she believes will not change, and therefore her behavior as a good wife cannot achieve a happy marriage or life for her. Most importantly, Nora, through her sacrificial decision, becomes a model for other human beings who are oppressed, to become aware of their own rights to a better life, rather than remaining in an oppressive status quo.  Elliot explains that “Ibsen's A Doll House has helped open doors for women around the world that opened people's eyes to the evil of slavery” (194).  I believe that this play is not only about women oppressions, but also about human oppressions in the world.

According to Marxist critics (Fredric Jameson, 48), there are only three possible answers in A Doll House: “the play supports the status quo, argues the reform in an essentially sound system, or advocates a radical restructuring.  Ibsen’s intention is to support reform and revolution.  He wants to make his society realize that women suffer in their status quo as wives depend on her husband, have no right to choose, their rights are only to be blamed if their husbands upset.

According to Durbach, Henrik Ibsen discussed Norwegian Society for Women’s Rights, he states, “I thank for your toast, but must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for women’s rights.  I am not even quite sure what women’s rights really are.  To me it has been a question of human rights.  And if you have read my books carefully you will realize that.   Of course it is incidentally desirable to solve the problem of women; but has not been my whole object.” (91).  From Ibsen’s explanation, we understand that A Doll House is not only written for women’s rights, but also for men and everyone’s in this world as Ibsen suggests us to refer to his previous books.

Rachel Ablow has asserted that the most importance of the Victorian novels on the grounds that “such texts can train us to identity sympathetically with individual members of marginalized or oppressed groups within our own society, and encourage us to act for their benefit” (3).  Ablow argues that Ibsen’s play will encourage us to be more sympathy to his heroin, Nora, since she is a symbol of oppressed groups.

A principal idea of Marxist criticism is that “human consciousness is a product of social conditions and those human relationships are often subverted by and through economic considerations” (Shafer, 77).  Shafer argues that the way of people interact with each other is influenced by their economic status.  For example, Mrs. Linde has to marry a rich man to support her brother and her mother.  Anne Marie is a victim of low economy, and she becomes a maid to support her family. And even Nora has to be a liar to secure her husband. From these depictions, we can say that the need for money is linked with the capability to be existed.  But, they do not realize that they are shaped by socioeconomic considerations.

Conclusion

Ibsen’s A Doll House is a play about women and human oppression.  Nora and other women in the play are depicted as submissive and oppressed.  Ironically, Nora has the burden to pay her debt even though she has a rich husband. Mrs. Linde has to marry a rich man to support her brother and her mother, but divorces eventually.  Mrs. Merry has to be a servant to support her family.  All women in the plays suffered and are marginalized economically, though the men have power, socially and economically, Torvald as a banker and Dr. Rank as a doctor.

In marital relationships, the women also suffer, where Nora is controlled by her husband in terms of food, clothes, dance, and everything in her life.  She has no rights to share her feelings and her emotions since she knows Torvald will be angry and does not want to be disturbed in his job.  They just talk about artificial things, not essential ones. 

In A Doll House, Ibsen demonstrates the value of freedom, and then it is not only for women but for everyone in the world.  Ibsen’s intent is to encourage society to be more aware of women and marital relationships, since during his time divorce was quite common in the higher classes, but in fact, led to women being isolated by society, as well.  Ibsen’s Nora creates a new way to escape her oppression, which is like that of a slave or a doll that cannot do anything by itself and does not even have the right to live.  Her action shows that freedom is more important than being rich without a meaningful life. 

Richard Cory: Robinson's Admire

Edwin Robinson’s poem “Richard Cory” (1897) tells about a gentleman who is admired by many people in his home town. He is admired because he is rich, smart, gentle and so perfect.  He was a handsome man, with glasses on his face, with mustaches which are a symbol of a gentleman, and with his perfect suites which are the symbol of a rich man. He was so perfect. 

However, he does not have a family.  It makes him feels sad and feels empty in his heart.  Even though many people admire his performance which is so perfect, inside his soul is very empty.  That makes him always stay outside to compensate for his emptiness by working hard.  He was too busy pursuing his materials and worldly things till he forgets about the most important thing than can make people happy in this world, which is love.  It is so tragic that he forgets to find his love.  Finally, at the end of his monotone life, he realizes that his brain is burned, his heart is humble. 

At the peak of his humbleness, he needs someone to share and to understand his feeling, someone to hold and hug, and someone to love.  He cannot buy love, so it is hard to find someone to share with.  Because he is so perfect, it is hard for him to find a very perfect, pretty woman.  He tries to find her, but he could not.  Eventually, he kills himself.   It is so tragic.  He has everything but nothing. 

His suicide shows that he does not believe in God.  He just believes in himself.  He wrongly believes no one cares about him.  But he never shows that feeling to somebody else.  What he shows so far is that he is a gentleman who is strong enough to stand by himself without anybody, including a woman who could love him so much and take care of him tenderly.